|
|
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
:That's a tough call. Most of me says no, as the focus is really on the jewellery. Part of me says yes, on general wikisurfing principles. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:navy;">'''[ [[User:Roux|<span style="color:olive">roux</span>]] ] ['''[[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:olive;">x</span>]]''']'''</span> 17:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC) |
:That's a tough call. Most of me says no, as the focus is really on the jewellery. Part of me says yes, on general wikisurfing principles. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:navy;">'''[ [[User:Roux|<span style="color:olive">roux</span>]] ] ['''[[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:olive;">x</span>]]''']'''</span> 17:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC) |
||
::I contemplated adding [[:Image:Victoria in her Coronation.jpg]] because Victoria was a great contributer to the collection and is seen wearing the George IV diadem. But a) we already have an image of the diadem and b) the article has quite a few images. I suppose it could be added to the feud section if one wished. ;) --'''[[User:Cameron|Cameron]][[User Talk:Cameron|*]]''' 11:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC) |
::I contemplated adding [[:Image:Victoria in her Coronation.jpg]] because Victoria was a great contributer to the collection and is seen wearing the George IV diadem. But a) we already have an image of the diadem and b) the article has quite a few images. I suppose it could be added to the feud section if one wished. ;) --'''[[User:Cameron|Cameron]][[User Talk:Cameron|*]]''' 11:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::I think Vicky's picture is the better one for the Diadem.. (and my goodness, I'd never noticed how much Margaret and Elizabeth are the spitting image of Louise before...) — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:navy;">'''[ [[User:Roux|<span style="color:olive">roux</span>]] ] ['''[[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:olive;">x</span>]]''']'''</span> 11:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC) |
:::<s>I think Vicky's picture is the better one for the Diadem..</s> Actually on second thought, it's a tossup, and we already have Old Vic in the lead. (and my goodness, I'd never noticed how much Margaret and Elizabeth are the spitting image of Louise before...) — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:navy;">'''[ [[User:Roux|<span style="color:olive">roux</span>]] ] ['''[[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:olive;">x</span>]]''']'''</span> 11:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC) |
Jewels of Elizabeth II is currently a good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at 13:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC) An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.
This article is not categorized by subtopic. Please edit the |
Biography Unassessed | |||||||
|
A fact from Jewels of Elizabeth II appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 October 2008 (check views). A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/October. |
I recently wrote this page and I'm willing to do more work if needed. This is my first GA nom, be nice to me! ;p --Cameron* 13:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I'll be doing the GA review for this article, as you requested on my talk page. I don't have time to do a full review right at the moment, but I'll give you a few comments that jumped out at me on my first run through the article. Dana boomer (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are the major issues that I saw with the article. I haven't done a complete check of prose, although from what I've seen it looks good, so I doubt there will be many issues there. I am putting the article on hold for seven days to allow you time to deal with the issues I have raised above. Let me know here or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cameron! I'm just checking back in to see if you are still working on adding more information or if you are considering the article complete. Either way is good with me...just let me know! Dana boomer (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks great on the article, so I am passing it to GA status. Very nice work on the article, and the new sources look fantastic. Nice job! Dana boomer (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we use a better image for the Vladimir? this is a bit more detailed; perhaps it could be cropped to remove the overly Canadian elements as well as make it a bit smaller. Thoughts? — [ roux ] [x] 13:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though not strictly pertinent to the main article many of the images have notable characters in them, such as the first Duke of Wellington (the godfather of the child in the picture) on the first picture of the page. Should these be added to the captions? 129.67.17.233 (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]